Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    6,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. How would TINA be applicable to one or both of the sales? There is no context to either question.
  2. I have two friends who were submariners in Rickover’s Nuclear Fleet. One was an Officer on a Boomer. The other was an enlisted Nuclear Reactor Specialist on an attack sub, who said that some stories of missions on his Boat were in one of Tom Clancy’s books. Yes, my USNA Grad friend (once dubbed “Deck Swabbies” by Gen. Robin Olds) was interviewed by Admiral Rickover for his acceptance into the nuclear sub fleet.
  3. I don’t necessarily disagree, depending upon the circumstances. However, if the rating is based upon recorded PP ratings, the contractor has supposedly had the opportunity to respond. And the proposer should know the weaknesses of its rating record. If so, it may have had the opportunity to clarify what corrective actions it has taken as part of its proposal submission. Of course, if the KO or someone else is already aware of corrective actions taken to improve performance, that might be usable in the SSA/KO reasoning. If the purpose or result of clarifications is the opportunity for a proposer to revise/improve its proposal or become eligible for an award, those are more than clarifications, in my opinion (unless the KO is already aware of the corrective actions). In addition, it also depends upon what were the results of the other firms’ evaluations, pricing and likelihood of being able to improve their chances for award. There are a lot of variables to be considered. Sorry for the multiple edits. Vern posted while I was writing.
  4. Here we go again. This time it is Air Force 1: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2022/06/boeing-wants-more-money-new-air-force-one-usaf-official-says/368613/
  5. Of course, if the agency decides to conduct discussions with that firm, then it should include other firms that may have the potential to improve their technical and/or price proposals. May further complicate the best value trade-off decision, if one isn’t using another selection criteria method (e.g., LPTA).
  6. In the described scenario, the agency (the evaluators? The KO and the evaluators? The KO?) “rated” the firm’s past performance as “unsatisfactory or no confidence”. I think that it would be necessary to conduct discussions with the proposer to allow the proposer the opportunity to persuasively show the KO that it has taken corrective action, to be consistent with Mine Safety Appliances Company, B-266025, GAO Decision and in compliance with the referenced paragraphs in FAR 9.104. That would seem to me to be a big problem with the scenario described in the original post.
  7. Yep, it is referenced in 9.104-1 (c). “(c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and subpart 42.15). ”
  8. True enough, but I don’t think that Vern was necessarily limiting his comment to such scenarios. My first and second civil service bosses told me many years ago that I could choose a path of staying in one location for my career for financial stability but limited growth and promotion opportunities or be willing to move for greater growth, professional opportunities and promotion potential. I chose the latter path. Lived in three different continents and numerous cities and 5 states. Im still paying off my home mortgage, while friends who stayed put have paid off mortgages and have beach condos, etc. I retired at a much higher grade than most of them and had a very challenging, varied and fulfilling career.
  9. formerfed, I interpreted the initial post above as a situation where the performance rating assigned to the instant proposal is unsatisfactory or no confidence but where the evaluation criteria doesn’t specifically state that such a rating would make a proposal unawardable. I think the KO would be insane to make award to such a firm without opening and conducting discussions. I won’t go into detail about what to discuss because we dont know what comparisons would be applicable to the circumstances. Suffice to say a KO would have to justify how such a proposal provides the “best value” in comparison with other offers and why it and other offers couldn’t be improved through discussions. If the KO has no confidence that the firm will successfully complete the job then it doesn’t appear that the firm is a responsible prospective contractor, meeting the requirements of FAR 9.104-1 (c).
  10. There are offsetting considerations for this to consider, especially if you have a family. Moving every few years is disruptive and can be expensive. And if you have to finance a home purchase each time, it could result in having to pay off the mortgage loan well into retirement age.
  11. But it’s your poll, not mine. 🤠
  12. I was going to wait, in the event that you wanted to modify it to get a clearer picture of the actual share of users that are currently in the contracting career field. I’m sure that there are other acquisition workforce members in addition to non-fed and retired fed members. Just sayin’ 🤠
  13. Bob, I was thinking simply to answer yes or no to “Are you a current Federal acquisition employee?” (Or “contracting employee”, if you prefer) And identify your age group. I think that would be simple. Then you, as the webmaster can analyze the data yourself to determine the age breakdown of current employees and the rest of the membership. Allows you to know the breakdown for the general membership and for the active federal employee contracting membership. You could share that with us occasionally.
  14. If possible, can you add a breakdown to distinguish the age groups of those members responding who say they are current government employees from we others who are either retired or non-government? Something like overall age groups and subgroups of current employees…?
  15. This is a nice overview of Groves and Oppenheimer: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/unlikely-pair It also mentions the opposition to Groves’ selection of Oppenheimer, if you are wondering why. I didn’t know that Gen. Groves had been in charge of the Country’s Mobilization construction program up to that point in 1942. That was an exceptional feat in itself!
  16. Bob, it may be time to lock this poll and start a new one. It’s been six years since the poll was opened. Thanks.
  17. It is sometimes used for construction contracts when the project is substantially complete and there are punch list items that the contractor failed to complete or correct…
  18. Well, it looks like the original poster may have checked out back on the 15th of June. I think it’s a waste of time and effort for us to continue to probe and speculate about the original question.
  19. Indeed, the original poster, LynnPerformance, needs to provide some clarification to readers. 1. Are you referring to a task order under an IDIQ or to the contract award? 2. If referring to a task order, did the task order specifically incorporate the proposed staffing matrix ? 3. Does the task order pricing refer to or otherwise clearly correlate with the staffing matrix? 4. Did the task order incorporate the proposal? 5. Are the performance requirements measurable? 6. Are there any specified requirements? A proper performance specification should be measurable and verifiable. 7. Can the contractor substantiate that/how it is meeting the task order requirements? 8. If the contractor says that it has the right to staff the task as it sees fit and it isn’t meeting the task order performance requirements /can’t substantiate its performance, what is the government doing about it?
  20. Carl, you should know by now that you won’t get the last word in…🤪
  21. The other point that is important here is that the customer should have some input if they will be administering the contract(s).
  22. By the way what is the role of the “technical evaluation team” which you are referring to? Do they evaluate and rate the proposals or do they just review, evaluate and provide a technical report or briefing to another panel or to the KO?
  23. The KO can have as many or few technical evaluation teams and/or members as they deem necessary. Why do you think that the KO is restricted to one team, if the solicitation is set up with the possibility of two awards. As for agency supplements, we don’t know what your specific agency is. No other agency supplement would be relevant. I will say that the KO should be working to meet their customer’s needs and not ignore the customers goals.
×
×
  • Create New...